I make multiple references (as far back as 2003) to Dave Snowden and his “Cynefin” sensemaking – organisational strategic action consulting business. My interests remain more abstract philosophically – metaphysical – but even with differences of shared understanding at this level, and indeed his personal style & preference level, I am nevertheless a “fan boy” at the level of his practical participatory approach(es).
I said as much in the post from early this year, in which I also included my favourite version of his Cynefin Framework diagram. This has evolved in detail over the years, particularly in the labelling / annotation language, but despite appearances has maintained its distinction from the Boston Consulting 2×2 grids, ubiquitous in management consulting space. However many dimensions our real problem space, any view on page or screen is a 2D projection, with its own orthogonal axes, so this isn’t a criticism. But seemingly simple views – for understandable reasons of intended problem simplification – often lead the unwise to simplistic understandings and decisions. The Cynefin diagram always maintained the clue that we weren’t looking at a single contiguous plane. The aporetic gap / hole.
The focus was always complexity, so that different “sciences” (*) and approaches could be brought to various Simple > Complicated > Complex > Chaotic domains, but that has become a given, with all “Systems Thinking” being seen as a response to complexity. Snowden has multiple other working views and approaches as well as his framework overview – documented more and more in his prolific writing. The reason for this post is to capture a copy of a new overview that has been shared increasingly – e.g. on LinkedIn – over the summer.
I like it, even if I haven’t fully digested it or Snowden’s intent. The language in the boxes will no doubt evolve with context, but those two axes and all ten words of their labels seem to hit their targets.
The fine- and coarse-graining of interventions, the natural (externally) and (internally) stimulated emergence of new species (of whatever we’re interested in). And, the four levels of complication replaced with the simpler (Ha!) ordered vs complex distinction. Ha!, because all distinctions (#GoodFences / lines drawn, that diagram has several) are simple-looking binary dichotomies in our ontologies, however much we wish to avoid them being “unnecessarily” divisive in our real-world problem space.
The previous vertical divider between ordered (simple / complicated) and complex (complex / chaotic) is now mapped as the red arc, and the aporetic gap is now smeared and swept around the whole – partially turned inside-out?
Also having mentioned dichotomies, I notice Dave is pushing several triadic views. The dichotomies at fundamental levels of abstraction (ontologies) don’t go away, but any number of more practically useful views are constructed from these.
=====
(*) I say “sciences” in scare quotes, because a significant part of my philosophical systems agenda is that there is “more than science” (first link here) that matters 🙂
And I notice the latest graphic above is being shared in connection with his “Estuarine Mapping” methodology. Picked-up on that as an interesting concept a couple of years ago, but never followed its detailed development since. An omission.
=====
Post Note: Slight change of topic – but reminded of something I didn’t respond to at the time. A month or so ago, since the Birmingham ISSS2025 dialogues, Dave made some LinkedIn comments about styles of argumentation. He’s often quite pedantic about being quoted literally rather than any attempt at paraphrasing or rephrasing in ones own words. Obviously “claiming” agreement with Dave on the basis of one’s own rephrasing isn’t on – and I do regularly point out that we do have disagreements (despite which, etc.) – BUT attempts at rephrasing each other are a fundamental part of dialogue towards agreeing shared understandings of a topic. “Try this”.
Obviously they’re not “agreed” until mutually agreed and it would be disingenuous to suggest so. Don’t believe I ever have?
Very much my “Rules of Engagement” topic.
And another (Oct 2025) quote on abuse of pragmatism -still sticking to his “science” guns:
The use, and too frequently the abuse, of Pragmatism (philosophy) in management theory is growing. Too much of this apologia falls foul of Russel’s criticism that Pragmatist’s theory of truth is subjective, resting on emotional satisfaction and utility rather than correspondence to an objective reality. Now most complexity science work acknowledges pragmatism, in particular abduction which is rigorous within the context of systems without material linear causality. Pearce rightly sees it as the foundation of science. But it is rigorous, not an excuse to justify the abusive ‘I think it worked for me last time so it must be universally true’. One indicator is if the references are to Peirce & Quine or James & Dewey and/or an attempt to oppose what is too often a strawman characterisation of natural science.
It is of course Russell’s view of science I am rejecting. And, talking of strawmen ‘I think it worked for me last time so it must be universally true’ would be a good example 🙂 Incorrigible.
And another (Oct 2025) pragmatic reality quote from Dave:
I doubt anyone creating a frame would hold it to be universal. Any framework carries and should declare both ontological and epistemological assumptions. But language is itself a framework that constrains conversational interaction. Some frameworks (semiotics for example) provide ways to de-territorialise those constraints. It’s all a lot more messy and entangled that implied [by your post]. Also frameworks can liberate people from facilitation, which is why some consultants dislike them. Curation of conversation is a constraint as well.
To which I would add – all (good) constraints (applied at the right levels of abstraction) are creative. Sufficiently abstract, they can be pretty close to universal, but even that requires a shared language, as Dave says.
=====